Occupy the Moment is on the air

A few weeks ago, I covered an event by the St. Louis Occupy protest, interviewing many of the protesters. One of these protesters (named "Matt") has (along with "Mark") created a website called Occupy the Moment, which is "Podcasting in solidarity with Occupy Wall Street." I just finished listening to the Episode 3 podcast (more than an hour in length), and was encouraged to hear extensive intelligent, well-informed and self-critical analysis regarding Occupy protests, both in St. Louis and nationwide.  The first 40-minutes of Episode 3 concerned the Occupy movement. Listening to this podcast, I heard that some protesters are charging that at least some St. Louis police officers are obscuring the names on their badges or even displaying false names. The hosts do recognize that the St. Louis Police Department has generally shown admirable restraint regarding the St. Louis protesters. From the same podcast I also learned that last week the Manhattan police (apparently illegally) seized a Wikileaks donation truck.  I've heard that J.P. Morgan/Chase donated more than $4 Million to the New York Police Department shortly before the Department evicted protesters from Zucotti Park. I heard the hosts discuss other substantial collaborations between large corporations and law enforcement. The hosts also commented at length on the recent and obviously coordinated simultaneous evictions of protesters nationwide. Matt and Mark voice many well-considered opinions regarding the motives and methods of the Occupy protests and the oftentimes disappointing response to these protests by law enforcement agencies and the national media.  The podcast covers issues raised by particular Occupy protests in many locations across the country.   Once they finish discussing the Occupy movement, the hosts moved on to discuss other issues, including hot issues regarding intellectual property. Based on Podcast 3, I plan to periodically return to Occupy the Moment to hear further insights regarding the Occupy movement, in St. Louis and beyond.

Continue ReadingOccupy the Moment is on the air

The dangers of “Protect-IP” in a nutshell

Protect-IP is an abysmal idea. No one likes it except for well-monied content providers. It would, if construed broadly by the courts, hinder the ability of ordinary folks to organize in order to promote higher profits for the entertainment industry, which already has plenty of ways to protect its IP. This is too high a price to pay.

PROTECT IP Act Breaks The Internet from Fight for the Future on Vimeo.

How flawed are the approaches now being considered by Congress? Consider these reasons.

Continue ReadingThe dangers of “Protect-IP” in a nutshell

Twitter required to hand over data in Wikileaks investigation

This, from EFF:

A district court judge in Virginia ruled against online privacy today, allowing U.S federal investigators to collect private records of three Twitter users as part of its investigation related to Wikileaks. The judge also blocked the users' attempt to discover whether other Internet companies have been ordered to turn their data over to the government.

Continue ReadingTwitter required to hand over data in Wikileaks investigation

How to destroy a perfectly good real estate recording system.

What would you think if an outside enemy systematically attacked hundreds of U.S. county real estate recording offices, making it impossible for most of us to know who owns what legal rights regarding real estate anymore.   Imagine that our courts, from coast to coast, have slowed to a crawl because the enemy had nefariously dismantled a system that had worked quite well for centuries. Imagine that, also for centuries, the filing fees paid for recording real estate interests had funded numerous important local government functions, but that the outside enemy destroyed this source of income, causing many government functions to flounder. Image that this enemy then set up its own real estate "information" offices that gave lots of incomplete information, often refusing to provide any information at all, and did so with reprehensible customer service. Imagine one more thing:  This has all really happened, but it was not caused by an outside enemy. Rather, all of this has happened regarding 60% of all home mortgages, and the entities doing the damage are America's banks, who have conspired to create an entity called MERS, designed to circumvent government real estate recording offices, at a high cost to everyone who relies on the integrity of our real estate recording system. If you want to know the specifics, here is a terrific article by law professor Chris Peterson: "Two Faces: Demystifying the Mortgage Electronic Registry System's Land Title Theory." This damage to our recording system is relatively new--it's been happening for a bit more than ten years, but the theme is now familiar to many of us: Corporate players taking over government functions and, in the process, rigging the playing field against the interests of ordinary Americans. The challenge now is to see whether the courts across America can recognize MERS for what it is, a despicable scam that has clouded the real estate titles of millions of people in an effort to rev up private corporate profits.   The courts are now clogged with many cases attempting to deal with the problems caused by MERS; you'll want to keep your eye on this story to see whether the courts will slap down the banks.

Continue ReadingHow to destroy a perfectly good real estate recording system.

The inherent danger of complex laws and regulations

We often hear big businesses complaining about regulations, but if those regulations are complex enough, they turn into giant opportunities for big business. All you need is a smart team of lawyers in order to drive a big truck through a tiny loophole or exemption, as explained by Kevin Drum of Mother Jones:

[N]o one should take too seriously Republican complaints about burdensome regulations strangling the economy. The truth is that most reformers prefer fairly simple rules. In the tax world, they'd prefer to simply tax all income. In the environmental world, they'd prefer to set firm limits for pollutants. In the financial world, they'd prefer blunt rules that cut off risky activity at its knees.

But businesses don't like simple rules, because simple rules are hard to evade. So they lobby endlessly for exemptions both big and small. This is why we end up with tax subsidies for bow-and-arrow makers. It's why we end up with environmental rules that treat a hundred different industries a hundred different ways. It's why financial regulators don't enact simple leverage rules or place firm asset caps on firm size. Those would be hard to get around and might genuinely eat into bank profits. Complex rules, conversely, are the meat and drink of $500-per-hour lawyers and whiz kid engineers. If the rules are complicated enough, smart lawyers can always find ways around them. And American corporations employ lots of smart lawyers.

In an earlier post, I had cited this quote: "One can make money only if there is real risk based on actual uncertainty, and without uncertainty there is no risk.' To the extent that we have simple and understandable rules, it is harder to hide unfair business practices. There is great value to uncertainty--to unwieldy and vague legislation--to those who have teams of savvy lawyers and accountants whose job it is to navigate and circumvent the purported intent of the legislation. That's because most of us don't have the time, attention, energy or political clout to rein in those who create these legislative monstrosities. We're too busy working 8 or more hours per day at the office, then trying to be good parents, trying to fix the house or car, and maybe relaxing for an hour or two per night. How many of us are interested or able of plowing through 2,000 page legislative packages or regulations in our "free time," or trying to make sense of complex court decisions that also struggle with these legislative morasses? As Kevin Drum writes:

We could probably cut the size of agency regulations by 10 times if we wanted to. But business don't want to. Sure, they'd prefer no regulation at all, but they know that's not in the cards. So in public they bemoan complexity, but in private they fight endlessly for more of it. To their lawyers, every single extra page is an extra opportunity to make more money.

It makes one think that we need a law to outlaw complex laws.  We need a law that all laws should be written in plain English and that they must be understandable by high school graduates.  Those who insist that they need something that is not reasonably understandable should be presumed to benefit a special interest and presumed to be opposed to the public good.  Complex laws are huge red flags, regardless of the title of the law or the way politicians assure us that these laws will benefit the public. Indigestibly complex laws almost always signal that ordinary Americans are getting screwed.

Continue ReadingThe inherent danger of complex laws and regulations